Now America has been spending 2-3 times on healthcare compared to ANY country in the world since 2000. Now this has been the trend since the early 1990s(i've done many university projects on it my resources are mainly in stats books in the library) Which is shocking because America's life expectancy and quality of life is lower than a lot of other first world countries(your life expectancy is equal to those in Cuba) According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008. The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy.(wikipedia). Now this is absurd, like you are spending more on health than countries like Norway that offer free heroin clinics so that less people contract HIV and other needle stick injuries from using used needles and still have little to show for it.

But what i'm saying is that American health care has needed a huge change for a LONG time. The initial cost may be high to change the mentality and hopefully redirect the money and at least Obama is trying to put something in place....You are so proud of your supposed private health care However, Your country already spends $7,146 per person for health(Canada spends 5000 per person, now Canada isn't perfect, but a lot of European countries spend less as well).... Just a thought, Things need to get done, and your supposed PRIVATE system isn't what it seems. When as a nation you realize that Health care has been a Public entity all along, and then when it Actually becomes a Public system, mentality starts to change, Prevention and education becomes key. People start living longer with Less stress, less health concerns and a better quality of life. It's a culture change though, which can be the hardest change.

Maybe, I know little about health care in other countries, except that in some countries the surgeon will not operate without cash up front. However, this law does little if anything to reduce the costs associated with health care; in fact, It may actually accelerate prices by reducing competition among insurance companies. Creating another bureaucracy to oversee costs, in combination with raising taxes, to me, is not a good idea. On a side note, I'm curious, just how much in taxes do Canadians pay for their affordable care?

John, the way I understand it, many years ago, right after WWII, the government decided executives were paid too much money, so a salary cap was implemented. As an unexpected consequence, in order to recruit the best and the brightest, part of the negotiation process was an offer to pay for an employee's health care. That merger has helped to lead led where we are today. Yes, we need regulation, but this proposal will do anything to bring the cost of care down and may have many unforeseeable setbacks to not only care, but also affordability.

I don't know any country with first world public Health care, where if YOU are a citizen.... they would with hold any surgery or anything available to save your life, it's free. A surgeon pretty much null's their entire Doctor's Oath if that is the mentality, to wait for money up front. Most of my colleagues in Canada actually refuse to be doctors in the states because it is an incredibly unethical system. You have to be willing to void your entire hippocratic oath. I do know many Canadians living/working in the states that make sure to come back to Canada to birth their children here.... better chance their infant will live, and it is free. Slight abuse of the system.... but I'd rather be known for that then some other things.

The Amercian HC system is full of crutches that make it very expensive. Employers buying health insurance and the govt paying for part of your HI just put more money into the system and drive the price up. This could be Obama's strategy to get single payer. But you can't tell the different from that strategy and trying to get everyone insured. They both look the same because single payer is probably the only way to get there.

The key is.... even with our Income tax being higher.... We still spend LESS money per person on Health Care. Less of our money is going to health and our system is FREE. But prevention and education has become a huge role in it. Cigarettes insanely expensive and highly taxed..... You Smoke, You are pretty much paying your health care with each pack.

1. Many forget that healthcare is a service, not a right. Its the same as telling the American people that everyone has a right to a motor vehicle and forcing Ford to supply everyone a new car at a price dictated by the government and paid for by taxes. Why would anyone with any brains want to be in the car business if this was how it was ran? The brightest would go do something else. Our government is a prime example of the talent you get with these types of constraints. The free market is the best thing that could happen for ALL healthcare, which leads me to point #2.

2. Why is healthcare so expensive? Or better yet, why is there not a low cost alternative? Just like cars in a free market, there are gonna be Ferraris and there are going to be Hondas. The poor can find cars they can afford, but why not healthcare? Its because our legal system makes being a doctor very risky. There is no other job on the planet that requires you to be perfect every day with little margin for error. Look at you own job, what if the person paying you could sue you for everything you own each time you make a mistake? Because of this risk, doctors have to carry heavy malpractice insurance. You cannot afford their service with that cost factored in, so you carry health insurance as well. This puts the doctors at the mercy of the insurance companies. In order to make any money they have to band together with other doctors to split the overhead just to scrape by. Why cant a doctor decide to go open a clinic in the ghetto and make money on volume getting paid directly out of pocket servicing the poor at an affordable cost? The laws make it cost prohibitive.

Tort reform is what is needed, not because it will instantly drop the cost of everything, but it begins the cycle of cost dropping. With malpractice cost cut exponentially, the overhead is lower, the cost to consumer is lower, the need for anything but catastrophic insurance goes away, the insurance companies lose their grip on docs, and pharma has to compete on a level playing field. The best minds can again make a career in the medical profession, you will see the return of housecalls, and there will be an affordable option for everyone.

Viva' La-Bomba, that right folks Ron T is 100% correct. Get sick and need a operation in Mexico. They won't touch you until you pay up. Happened to my wife's friend when she was in mexico.It's a no brainer why people risk life and limb to come over for many of the Free things our Liberal government wants to hand out. Obama Care = thousands of New IRS agents to extractors money (aka tax's) from the working class so they can give it to the ones that don't. If you voted for Obama your a straight Idiot.

1. Many forget that healthcare is a service, not a right. Its the same as telling the American people that everyone has a right to a motor vehicle and forcing Ford to supply everyone a new car at a price dictated by the government and paid for by taxes. Why would anyone with any brains want to be in the car business if this was how it was ran? The brightest would go do something else. Our government is a prime example of the talent you get with these types of constraints. The free market is the best thing that could happen for ALL healthcare, which leads me to point #2.

2. Why is healthcare so expensive? Or better yet, why is there not a low cost alternative? Just like cars in a free market, there are gonna be Ferraris and there are going to be Hondas. The poor can find cars they can afford, but why not healthcare? Its because our legal system makes being a doctor very risky. There is no other job on the planet that requires you to be perfect every day with little margin for error. Look at you own job, what if the person paying you could sue you for everything you own each time you make a mistake? Because of this risk, doctors have to carry heavy malpractice insurance. You cannot afford their service with that cost factored in, so you carry health insurance as well. This puts the doctors at the mercy of the insurance companies. In order to make any money they have to band together with other doctors to split the overhead just to scrape by. Why cant a doctor decide to go open a clinic in the ghetto and make money on volume getting paid directly out of pocket servicing the poor at an affordable cost? The laws make it cost prohibitive.

Tort reform is what is needed, not because it will instantly drop the cost of everything, but it begins the cycle of cost dropping. With malpractice cost cut exponentially, the overhead is lower, the cost to consumer is lower, the need for anything but catastrophic insurance goes away, the insurance companies lose their grip on docs, and pharma has to compete on a level playing field. The best minds can again make a career in the medical profession, you will see the return of housecalls, and there will be an affordable option for everyone.

They passed it in TX several years ago, healthcare costs have increased. So how can you say "it begins the cycle of cost dropping"?

I know all of you "conservatives" tend to believe anything you read provided it comes from a "conservative" news source, but did any of you actually take the time to read the actual report from the IRS? Nowhere in the report does it say that Obamacare is going to cost every family $20,000 a year. It uses that as a scenario where an employee that makes 120,000 a yr and pays 5,000 for his employer's healthcare plan and then the other three family members pay the same amount. It is strictly hypothetical.

And I am not sure what exactly CNS news is (the link Ron posted with the story), but did you guys happen to scroll down and read any of the comments? It's shocking that people still have a 1950's southern mentality when it comes to black people. It's also why the GOP has begun to distance itself from "conservative" loons and teabaggers on the national level.

Jason good point.. That is another difference, Canada has a limit for the amount of money a person can be sued for. The cases in the states for well over a million bucks for minor things are insane. Canadian Doctor's can be sued.... but usually a public inquiry is demanded, as we as a public want to demand the best health care. When people fall through the cracks of Canadian health care, it's usually the government to blame and media and public hold them accountable. It does cost money, however it holds health care accountable. As opposed to an American person vs. American doctor multi million dollar suit over the fact that your doctor should have just told you to lose 100lbs ten years ago and you wouldn't be in this mess. Thus, Canadian doctor's do not pay as much for malpractice.

Tort reform will help, but it isn't central to the problem. The more HC costs the more HI companies make. There no incentive to lower costs until the well runs dry. The example of Cliff's $900 a tube medication costing $25 runs through out the system because it's not a free market, and the system can take advantage of people whenever opportunity knocks. It the use it or lose HI subsidies that are guaranteeing HI providers a customer on the terms of the HI company. If purchasers had to make a decision as to what to purchase out of their own wallet we wouldn't had such a high rate of inflation.

It's been demonstrated to be an unworkable model. And now we are in a position where a substantial part of the population cannot get HC or HI because it's unfordable. What Jason said... "HC is not a right", is a only a half truth. Access to HC is a right. Having provided for free is not. However, that's only part of the equation. Society has corrupted the system and eliminated the right of access.

My point is that there is a really big market for low cost service in every field. We have $99 brake job, $1 stores, and many others that lower cost to consumer in various ways. Healthcare is no different, except the laws make it impossible. Its the law that keeps it from happening, not the willingness off good doctors to make a mint in this space.

I dont get this info from conservative news. I don't really tune in to the usual shows that get all the blame, and honestly, this topic hasn't seen any light in a while. I get my info from people in the industry. The reasoning in my previous post was straight from my PCP (who by the way is an incredible doc with a passion for what he does). Maybe he is overly optimistic in his view of the industry, but I would certainly rather our government mandate a workable capitalistic approach first, before enacting irreversible socialism.

If the Obama care is so good how come all government officials are exempt.I'll tell you why.This is America,the land of opportunity, you aspire to be the best at what you do.When you are considered to be the best you expect to be compensated accordingly.Therefore what has changed.People who have money will get the best care,the rest of us split the cost and inconvenience of dealing with the people who do nothing but see the doctor for free.To set things straight,I'm 53 and i've been to the doctor less than a dozen times in my adult life.I'm not one of the abusers i've paid for health care for 35 years.Now if i go see the doctor it will take longer and most likely won't allow me the same options i had Pre Obama care.There are a lot of procedures Obama care won't cover as you get older.The governments way of controlling health care costs and population that uses SS,Medicare and Medicaid.If your and illegal alien who has NEVER paid any taxes you get the best of what the government has to offer even though you have contributed nothing.Yeah Obama care is great and nobody has stolen our SS.

If the Obama care is so good how come all government officials are exempt.I'll tell you why.This is America,the land of opportunity, you aspire to be the best at what you do.When you are considered to be the best you expect to be compensated accordingly.Therefore what has changed.People who have money will get the best care,the rest of us split the cost and inconvenience of dealing with the people who do nothing but see the doctor for free.To set things straight,I'm 53 and i've been to the doctor less than a dozen times in my adult life.I'm not one of the abusers i've paid for health care for 35 years.Now if i go see the doctor it will take longer and most likely won't allow me the same options i had Pre Obama care.There are a lot of procedures Obama care won't cover as you get older.The governments way of controlling health care costs and population that uses SS,Medicare and Medicaid.If your and illegal alien who has NEVER paid any taxes you get the best of what the government has to offer even though you have contributed nothing.Yeah Obama care is great and nobody has stolen our SS.

Robert, I'm wondering if you can explain this since you purport to know so much about ObamaCare?

'"And I am not sure what exactly CNS news is (the link Ron posted with the story), but did you guys happen to scroll down and read any of the comments? It's shocking that people still have a 1950's southern mentality when it comes to black people. It's also why the GOP has begun to distance itself from "conservative"loons and teabaggers on the national level."" That was the first link that popped up when I started researching so, Jeremy, here's a link that you have used in the past that clarifies the "penalties." http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-muc...obamacare-tax/ I find it interesting that the original proposal--in a letter from Nancy Pelosi-- outlined the three plans as Gold (9000 a year), Silver (7000 a year), and Bronze (5000 a year). What happened to those numbers? The IRS is using the 20,000 as an example, true enough, but once again, those numbers are a bit more inflated than what the original bill outlined. You can put lipstick on a pig. . .

^I understand Ron, I never said that there would be no penalty or cost. I was arguing against the "20,000 per family" your source attempts to claim.

Again, the IRS scenario is saying you pay 5,000 a year (for your company's healthcare plan; what you pay total for the year usually divided by the number of paychecks you receive), your wife pays 5,000 and your two kids pay 5,000 each.

Again... we have Jeremy attacking people, not actually what is being said - classic progressive liberal debate technique, attack the person, not the message, in fact, it is RULE #5. Jeremy why don't you actually start debating the topic and stop attacking people.

Is there a third graph that shows gross dollars or inflation adjusted dollars? There's a suggestion in those graphs that users pay for less care than they used to, but there's also a public perception that healthcare costs more than it used to. Is it possible that both are true? That out of pocket expenses have outpaced inflation even though they've shrunk as an overall component of the cost of healthcare?

In other words, isn't it possible that healthcare costs the consumer more even though we are paying for less of the overall cost than ever before?

The most important point about "out of pocket" declining is that both govt and the HC/HI industry have figured out that the highest costs can be achieved when the consumers decision to spend is taken away from them. Your employer contributes because you work for them. But you have no option to decline their insurance and pocket the money instead. Suppose your employer offers to pay you that money so you can buy your own insurance as you see fit. The govt will take up to 40+% of that pay and then there is no way to purchase your own cheaper insurance and still come out ahead. Instead you get less coverage and the govt gets the difference.

In the end the HI/HC industry wants you to use "other peoples money" (and I use that term loosely), because if you use your own money at your own decision they would have to be competitive. And you can darn well bet that they couldn't sell you something for $100 that you could get at the drug store for $5. And you can darn well bet that you wouldn't pay any bill that didn't have a line item breakdown of what you did pay for.

"Again... we have Jeremy attacking people, not actually what is being said - classic progressive liberal debate technique, attack the person, not the message, in fact, it is RULE #5. Jeremy why don't you actually start debating the topic and stop attacking people."

So what you are saying is that it is okay to base an argument on misinformation? If you choose to base your argument on non-facts, then yes, I will attack the person. It is impossible to "debate any topic" if the other side is allowed to use anything they wish.

Ron's link specifically lists a 20,000 price tag which is dishonest (not directed towards Ron, but the author of the story). It is the "chicken little" technique that conservative leaders embellish.

where do you get your info? I will gladly argue any point that you make. You think that just because Hannity or Rush argues a point, that it's wrong. You are the one with your head in the sand........

bring up one point that Hannity or Mark Levin brings up. When I win that debate, bring up another one, Lets do away with the emotional feels good crap and talk history, precedence, and numbers. You won't win. Then, we can move on to the next topic and do it all over again. Don't avoid the issue or redirect.....

If so, explain to me how during the election season that the polls were fixed and Romney was going to win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. They had pollsters on O'Reilly and Hannity both say that they had quit polling in FL and VA because they were a "lock" for Romney. You had Coulter and Morris saying the fix was in (the liberal media was screwing with the numbers) and Romney would by a landslide.

As far as "where did I get my info", I took it directly from the IRS.gov website. I don't need a pundit dumbing things down for me in order to form my own opinion.

If so, explain to me how during the election season that the polls were fixed and Romney was going to win Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. They had pollsters on O'Reilly and Hannity both say that they had quit polling in FL and VA because they were a "lock" for Romney. You had Coulter and Morris saying the fix was in (the liberal media was screwing with the numbers) and Romney would by a landslide.

As far as "where did I get my info", I took it directly from the IRS.gov website. I don't need a pundit dumbing things down for me in order to form my own opinion.

Since you are now willing to have a discussion without attacking anyone, can you please tell us your position on Obamacare. Do you not agree that it will raise prices on healthcare? Do you think this is a good law? Are you in favor a single payer system? If so, why? Do you believe in eugenics? Do you believe in abortion? Do you believe in the death penalty?

Based on over five years of lurking here and watching you attack people I doubt you will answer my first question, let alone the others. You will most likely pick one issue and go off on some tangential rant, ultimately blaming President Bush for any current transgression against the US Constitution by the Obama Administration. You won't defend that transgression, but simply state that Bush did it first and that you didn't hear anyone complaining then.

I don't think the election proved anything except that we have a divided country, and very diverse electorate, many of whom are ignorant of what is actually going on, many whom are ignorant of what a Constitutional Republic is, many more who know nothing of personal accountability, and many whom have never had to have a rational, coherent, substantive, thought, ever in their existence.

We have taken the consequences of our actions away, we have removed the need for personal improvement, we have removed the rewards of self accomplishment. Now people can advance through life by simply following the rules, filling out the correct forms, and answering to those above them, (like in the military). People are no longer rewarded for their excellence, but instead rewarded for mediocrity. Teachers no longer have to perform, they get tenure merely by following the rules, not by how they perform their jobs. We have entire classes of people who don't have to think, are training others not to think, and believe that someone owes them something.

Obamacare is not about healthcare, it is about power. It will not lower healthcare costs and was not designed to.

We have taken the consequences of our actions away, we have removed the need for personal improvement, we have removed the rewards of self accomplishment. Now people can advance through life by simply following the rules, filling out the correct forms, and answering to those above them, (like in the military). People are no longer rewarded for their excellence, but instead rewarded for mediocrity. Teachers no longer have to perform, they get tenure merely by following the rules, not by how they perform their jobs. We have entire classes of people who don't have to think, are training others not to think, and believe that someone owes them something.

Huh? Where is this World? I did not grow up in it and my kids are not currently growing up in it.

I knew and my kids now are learning, to succeed will take hard work. Nobody is going to give me anything, nobody is going to give my kids anything.....at least not at the level we would find acceptable. They are not growing up with the idea that being mediocre is a path to success.....or even acceptable, nor did I. I guarantee that they don't think they will advance in life by being average.

I feel like everyone I know who has a high desire for personal improvement, be that in career, personal life ect, has achieved greater success than those who float along. I've watched people float for years and then make huge changes. Those changes took dedication, drive, changes in lifestyle and long term planning to get to where they are now. Long story short, I've watched people become what most would call a "success", due to drive and hard work. In my little world, those with drive, determination, goals, wanting "better" and sacrificing to get that, are far more successful than individuals without those traits.

People who want better than mediocre and have enough drive and determination to get that, are usually rewarded for those traits. But of course, that is just my opinion, your results may vary.

Based on over five years of lurking here and watching you attack people I doubt you will answer my first question, let alone the others. You will most likely pick one issue and go off on some tangential rant, ultimately blaming President Bush for any current transgression against the US Constitution by the Obama Administration. You won't defend that transgression, but simply state that Bush did it first and that you didn't hear anyone complaining then.

You mean "based on five years of changing aliases"? Let's see, I first knew you as Sam and then it was Tucker and now Brearly. And I hardly remember you "lurking". I remember you being just as outspoken as I was. I wondered what happened to you and I had a sneaking suspicion when I saw the first Brearly_Mason post it was you. Welcome back, it seems that the libertarian in you has subsided and you have aligned yourself closer to the mainstream conservative/GOP. Maybe you are gearing up for another election and you have to get your marching orders from the "proper" people.

As far as the other nonsense in this paragraph. Obama resigning Bush's Patriot Act, not closing Gitmo as he said he would, and not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after being inaugurated were enough for me not to want to vote for him (I donated to his campaign in 2008 and I did not in 2012). However, after seeing the slew of idiots the GOP presented as candidates, there was no question on who would get my vote. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see what the outcome was going to be early on in the primary season.

You mean "based on five years of changing aliases"? Let's see, I first knew you as Sam and then it was Tucker and now Brearly. And I hardly remember you "lurking". I remember you being just as outspoken as I was. I wondered what happened to you and I had a sneaking suspicion when I saw the first Brearly_Mason post it was you. Welcome back, it seems that the libertarian in you has subsided and you have aligned yourself closer to the mainstream conservative/GOP. Maybe you are gearing up for another election and you have to get your marching orders from the "proper" people.

We have taken the consequences of our actions away, we have removed the need for personal improvement, we have removed the rewards of self accomplishment. Now people can advance through life by simply following the rules, filling out the correct forms, and answering to those above them, (like in the military). People are no longer rewarded for their excellence, but instead rewarded for mediocrity. Teachers no longer have to perform, they get tenure merely by following the rules, not by how they perform their jobs. We have entire classes of people who don't have to think, are training others not to think, and believe that someone owes them something.

How come everybody wants to blame the teachers? Best predictor of student academic success? Parents' education.

I was not blaming the teachers, only using them as example of how people can go through life without having to think and how we are now conditioning people not to think. I believe the parental part of your post is reflected in my previous post under self accountability.

The sad part is, according to this, my insurance is guaranteed to increase $10,000 and my friend’s insurance (private policy) will go from $15,600 a year to $45,000. Those are for the Gold plan option. IMHO, the Bronze is worthless. My brother-in-law currently pays a little less than $350 a month for a plan similar to the Bronze on the open market. In addition, the US will add another level of bureaucrat and exempt themselves. Now that is sound government at work.

Jeremy,
Sorry sir, but you are wrong yet again; although it does provide a good laugh to us at the lake when Ryan is around. I was on this site years ago before the format change. I am old with a family and don't wakeboard very much anymore, but my kids are starting to. My first post recently was about my new truck, I wanted to let people know that the Ram was a good ecoboost alternative. You did prove my point, you can't actually argue the facts, you attack the person. Thanks.

Shawndoggy,
I don't believe anyone except certain religious sects are exempt from Obamacare (Amish), I think politicians have to take part just like everyone else. I think their is a Forbes article that explains this rumor, but I can't find it.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the government is going to have an insurance plan, instead it mandates what the minimum coverage is that insurance companies have to provide in their base plan. The problem with Obamacare is that it eliminates the preexisting conditions clause meaning that a large percentage of people will just pay the fine until they get sick and then get a policy. With so many people not participating in the program the insurance companies will have to charge more to cover the sick people who end up getting a plan. As a result insurance co's will have to increase the prices until prices are so high all the insurance companies fail. After the insurance companies fail and our healthcare system is going down the tube the politicians will try for a single-payer plan like Canada has. Personally, I think Obamacare is its own worse enemy and will end up returning us to the purest form of the free market we have ever seen in the healthcare industry.

From an article I recently read:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.

The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016) No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.

The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...

The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.

However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.

But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:

Those who make less than $9,500

Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites

If you look at what the projected plan prices are, it is reasonable to assume that a large percentage of people will opt for the penalty instead of a plan. If you get cancer or break your leg, you just sign up and pay for a plan...

Kennedy Kassebaum has prevented insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions since 1996... provided your gap in coverage doesn't exceed 90 days. So insurers have been required to cover many of those folks by and large already. Have you seen anything indicating the number of "new" folks with pre-existing conditions?

Or are you saying that the currently healthy and insured will drop insurance and pay the fine instead? Why would they do that?

I believe the argument is that insurance rates will increase significantly due to the new minimum requirements for health insurance. Since the prices are/will sky rocket more and more people will drop their existing policy and opt to pay the fine instead. They will pick insurance back up if they actually get sick since the insurance company can't deny them after the fact.

A recent Washington Times article stated that approximately 7 Million people will lose coverage due their employers opting to pay the penalty versus paying for the more expensive insurance.

No. I am saying that what most insured people already get will disappear to some extent due to the new regulations and that people's current plan will continue to increase in price until is no longer affordable for them. Obamacare actually increases costs, not contain or reduce them. As a result more people will go without and opt to penalty either by their choice or by their employers choice.

I think John Anderson is correct in that Obamacare will result in the need/want for change in healthcare system. It is so bad that it will force the politicians to fix the system. Personally, I think it will end up pushing us to a much more market based alternative.

I think John Anderson is correct in that Obamacare will result in the need/want for change in healthcare system. It is so bad that it will force the politicians to fix the system. Personally, I think it will end up pushing us to a much more market based alternative.

I think you are right that its going to be imperfect, and I really wish the republicans would've gotten involved and worked on cost containment measures. That is absolutely the glaring hole.

More market based? Hmm... Only if reform comes very quickly. As people get used to the ACA, I'm afraid it's going to become more of a third rail sort of thing like social security.

I think that some Republicans did offer up some market based reforms, but the Dems had control of all three branches and the media.

I think I am much more optimistic than most. With the implementation of Social Security or Medicare we only had a small percentage of the electorate that were going to be immediately affected on a major level. With Obamacare almost the entire electorate will be affected compounded with the national debt, bad economy, and realization on the part of many zombies of the harsh realities of Obamacare I think the politicians will be forced to act and that those actions will require proven market based answers. My wife works in a healthcare/insurance related industry and runs into people on a daily basis that think Obamacare is similar to the Canadian system and they will get free healthcare.